The Issue Whether petitioner's application for an alcoholic beverage license should be denied because of the direct or indirect interest of John Lee Johnson, a person allegedly lacking good moral character.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1982, petitioner Betty Jean Johnson applied for a 2 APS (beer and wine) alcoholic beverage license to be used in connection with a business known as Johnson's Corner Grocery, 1400 North J. Street, Pensacola, Florida. On her application, petitioner indicated that she owned the business and that no other person had a direct or indirect interest in the business. (R-1) Prior to the petitioner filing her application, John Lee Johnson, her husband, had applied for a beverage license for the same location under his own name. When he failed to disclose his criminal history on the application, his application was denied and he was charged with the crime of filing a false official written statement. On May 12, 1982, he was convicted by the County Court of Escambia County. (Testimony of Baxley; R-3) John Johnson's filing of a false official statement supports an inference that he lacks good moral character. Petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to rebut or negate this inference. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, John Johnson has a direct or indirect interest in Johnson's Corner Grocery. He owns the underlying real property. He signs, and is authorized to sign, checks on the business account of Johnson's Corner Grocery. The business's utilities, light, water, and gas accounts are all in his name. (Testimony of Baxley, Johnson, Kelly; R-4) Petitioner, however, manage's the day-to-day operations of Johnson's Corner Grocery. On her application, she indicated that she had purchased the business for $80,000, with $25,000 down, and $55,000 financed by the Barnett Bank. She now admits that the $25,000 down payment was provided by John Johnson, her husband, and that he also co-signed the $55,000 note and mortgage. Her application, however, does not disclose Mr. Johnson's participation in the purchase and financing of, the business. (Testimony of Johnson; R-1, R-4) On November 9, 1982, three days before hearing, Mr. Johnson leased the Johnson's Corner Grocery property to petitioner for $675.00 per month for three years. The handwritten lease, which was not signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, states that Mr. Johnson will not be "responsible for . . . the operations of . . . [the] business." This assertion is rejected as unworthy of belief in light of his extensive involvement in purchasing and setting up the business, and his continuing access to its funds. (P-1)
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Emad F. Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs in defending the charges made against him in the case of Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco vs. Emad F. Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco, Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 91-1618, under the provisions of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code (formerly 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code) and, if so, the amount which Petitioner is entitled to recover.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Petitioner was licensed by the Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, to sell alcoholic beverages from the premises of Emad's Texaco, having been issued license number 63-2090, 2APS. The Petitioner timely filed the petition in the instant case in accordance with Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code (now Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code). The Respondent timely filed a written response alleging that Respondent was substantially justified in issuing the Notice To Show. With its response the Respondent filed an Affidavit challenging the amount of attorney's fees and cost requested by the Petitioner. However, this Affidavit was subsequently withdrawn and the Respondent made no further effort to contest the attorney's fees and costs incurred by the Petitioner. Emad Abdelmeseh is domiciled in the state of Florida and is the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business known as Emad's Texaco, located at 101 East Memorial Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. Emad's Texaco employs less than 25 employees, and the Petitioner's net worth is less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00). Petitioner is a "small business party" as that term is defined under Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes. On July 11, 1990, agents for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Division), John Blair and Brad Nelson, participated in a joint investigation with the City of Lakeland Police Department (CLPD) in the illegal selling of alcoholic beverages to minors. Throughout the course of this investigation the Division's agents were on official duty. Agents Blair and Nelson met with the CLPD detectives and Smalley prior to the investigation and remained with the investigation until its conclusion, including the investigation of Emad's Texaco. The Division, through its agents Blair and Nelson, fully participated in the investigation conducted on July 11, 1990, including Emad's Texaco, and did not simply rely on the CLPD's independent investigation to institute action against Emad's Texaco. This case was not what the Division considers an "adopted case" - one handled entirely by another law enforcement agency which request the Division to prosecute. Therefore, the investigation, as far as agents Blair and Nelson were concerned, should have been conducted in accordance with the Division's Policy and Procedure. The investigation of July 11, 1990, involved the use of an underage operative by the name of J. Karen Smalley n/k/a J. Karen Raschke (Smalley) with previous experience working with the Division, and documented as an underage operative by the Division. Prior to July 11, 1990, Smalley had also been used as an underage operative by the CLPD. During the July 11, 1990 investigation, Smalley was being paid by, and was under the direction of, the CLPD. Before leaving the Police Department to assist in the investigation on July 11, 1990, Smalley was instructed by both Detective Phillips and Agent Blair, on separate occasions, concerning her duties and responsibilities in regard to the investigation. During the course of the investigation on July 11, 1990, Smalley was sent on to the premises of Emad's Texaco for purposes of attempting to purchase an alcoholic beverage. Smalley went to the cooler area in Emad's Texaco's licensed premises and took a six-pack of beer to the check-out counter. Amad Abdelmeseh asked to see Smalley's identification. Smalley either handed her driver's license to Amad Abdelmeseh or laid her driver's license on the check-out counter. Emad Abdelmeseh looked at Smalley's driver's licenses which showed her date of birth to be July 24, 1970, just a few days short of being 20 years of age. Although the photograph of Smalley on the driver's license was taken in 1986, she still maintained her youthful appearance on July 11, 1990. On July 11, 1990, Smalley's hair was blonde, having dyed her hair which was brown when the driver's license was issued. However, Smalley did not dress-up or wear make-up on July 11, 1990, so as to appear older than her age of almost 20 years. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that at the time Smalley was attempting to purchase the six-pack of beer on July 11, 1990, that she: (a) told Emad Abdelmeseh that she was 21 years of age or older or; (b) produced a driver's license, other than the driver's license referred to above, that listed a date of birth which would have indicated an age of 21 years or older or; (c) in any fashion attempted to misrepresent her age as being 21 years or older After looking at Smalley's driver's license, Emad Abdelmeseh sold Smalley the six-pack of beer. After making the purchase of beer, Smalley exited Emad's Texaco and advised Detective Phillips that she had made a purchase of beer from the person inside the store. Detective Phillips advised Detective Tim Snyder of the purchase. Detective Snyder then went inside Emad's Texaco and identified Emad Abdelmeseh as the person who had sold the beer to Smalley. On August 8, 1990, Agent Blair served a Notice of Intent To File Administrative Charges against Emad Abdelmeseh's alcoholic beverage license as a result of his sale of alcoholic beverage to Smalley. On August 8, 1990, Abdelmeseh complained to Agent Blair about the lapse of time between Smalley making the purchase of beer on July 11, 1990 and the serving of the Notice of Intent on August 8, 1990. Emad Abdelmeseh did not complain to Agent Blair on August 8, 1990 that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him when she made the purchase of beer on July 11, 1990. In fact, Emad Abdelmeseh did not advise Agent Blair, or anyone else with the Division, of his allegation that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him on July 11, 1990, when she purchased the beer from him until after the Notice To Show Cause was issued by Lt. Robert Bishop. After the Notice of Intent was served on Emad Abdelmeseh, Agent Blair prepared a draft Notice To Show Cause and a synopsis for review by Lt. Robert Bishop, District Four Supervisor. Lt. Bishop has been a supervisor with the Division for 23 1/2 years. On August 16, 1990, Lt. Robert Bishop, acting with authority from the Division Director, issued a Notice To Show Cause which was served against the Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license on August 17, 1990 alleging that Petitioner had sold alcoholic beverages from the premises of Emad's Texaco to a person under the age of 21 years contrary to Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The issuance of the Notice To Show Cause was the initiation of the case against the Petitioner and the Division was not a nominal party in this case. In issuing the Notice To Show Cause, Lt. Bishop relied solely on the information in the Notice To Show Cause and the synopsis prepared by Agent Blair without any further investigation or discussion with Agent Blair. The Division had used Smalley as an underage operative on several occasions prior to the investigation on July 11, 1990, and had found her to be a credible and reliable underage operative. Therefore, the Division reasonably relied on Smalley in the issuance to the Notice To Show Cause to Emad Abdelmeseh, notwithstanding that on July 11, 1990, Smalley was being paid by, and was under the direction of, the CLPD. Agent Blair has been an agent with the Division for 16 years and his reports, according to Lt. Bishop, are impeccable. Therefore, Lt. Bishop had no problem in issuing the Notice To Show Cause to Emad Abdelmeseh based solely on Agents Blair's report, notwithstanding that Agent Blair's report did not specifically indicate that he had strictly adhered to the Division's Policy and Procedure. Although the record reflects that Agent Blair did not strictly adhere to the Division's Policy and Procedure on July 11, 1990, there is competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the CLPD detectives basically filled in the gaps, so the speak. It is clear from the testimony of Lt. Bishop that even if had he made further inquiry of Agent Blair concerning Agent's Blair's adherence to policy and procedure, it would not have changed Lt. Bishop's mind about issuing the Notice To Show Cause because there was a reasonable basis in law and fact to issue the Notice To Show Cause - there was credible evidence that Emad Abdelmeseh had sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage operative in violation of the Florida Statutes. Along with the Notice To Show Cause served on Emad Abdelmeseh there was a Notice Of Informal Conference which provided for an Informal Conference between the Division and Emad Abdelmeseh on August 28, 1990 at 3:00 p.m. It was at this informal conference on August 28, 1990, that Emad Abdelmeseh first advised anyone from the Division of his allegation that Smalley had misrepresented her age to him on July 11, 1990. The Informal Conference did not resolve the issues and a Request For Formal Hearing signed by Emad Abdelmeseh and dated September 4, 1990 was filed with the Division. In the Request For Hearing Emad Abdelmeseh sets out what he considers to be the disputed issues of fact. In this request there is an allegation that the underage operative was misleading in that when asked if she was 21 years of age she continued to purchase the beer as if she was an adult. There was no mention of Smalley presenting her driver's license By letter dated February 12, 1991, Emad Abdelmeseh again sets out what he considers to be the facts. Among other things, he alleges that Smalley claimed that she was over the age of 21 years and that she did present her driver's license for identification. On March 11, 1991, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of a formal hearing. The Division prosecuted this action in the case of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco vs. Emad Abdelmeseh, d/b/a Emad's Texaco, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 91-1618. On October 30, 1991 the Division exercised its administrative discretion and entered an Order of Dismissal dismissing the charges against Emad Abdelmeseh set forth in the Notice To Show Cause issued on August 16, 1990. The reasons behind the Division's dismissal of the case were not presented at the hearing on April 29. 1992 or November 17, 1992. The Petitioner is the prevailing small business party as that term is defined in Section 57.111(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The hourly rate and the total number of hours expended by Petitioner's attorney, and others under his control, and the costs incurred in the defense of the Petitioner as set out in Amended Affidavit and attached as Exhibit B to the Petitioner's Amended Petition in the amount of $11,429.77 are reasonable, and should be the amount awarded in the event Petitioner is successful in presenting his Amended Petition. There is competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that at the time the Notice To Show Cause was issued on August 16, 1990 the Division had made a meaningful inquiry into the matter and there was a reasonable basis in fact and law to initiate the action. No special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust.
The Issue Whether proposed Rules 61A-7.003, 61A-7.007, 61A-7.008, and 61A-7.009 constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes,1/ for the reasons described by Petitioner in its Petition.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Intervenor are companies whose substantial interests will be affected by the proposed rules and they have standing to bring this rule challenge. The State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (the Department), is the state agency responsible for adopting the proposed rules which are the subject matter of this proceeding. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Division) is vested with general regulatory authority over the alcoholic beverage industry within the state. The Division issues both general and special alcoholic beverage licenses. See Chapters 561-565, Fla. Stat. The general licenses which permit consumption on the premises are: 1COP licenses which permit consumption of beer and certain wine and distilled spirit products; 2COP licenses which permit consumption of beer, wine, and certain distilled spirit products; and 4COP licenses which permit the consumption of beer, wine, and all distilled spirits. See §§ 563.02(1)(b)-(f), 564.06(5)(b), and 561.20(1), Fla. Stat. The 4COP licenses are known as quota licenses, are issued based on the population of the county, and are limited in number. § 561.20(1), Fla. Stat. Quota liquor licenses range in value, depending on the county involved, from a low of approximately $20,000, to a high of approximately $300,000. (stipulation of parties) The SBX or special bowling license is issued by the Division pursuant to Section 561.20(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The owner or lessee of a bowling establishment having 12 or more lanes and necessary equipment to operate them may obtain this special license which permits consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Alcohol can only be sold for consumption on the licensed premises. Another special alcoholic beverage license listed in proposed Rule 61A-7.003 is the 12RT license. The holder of such a license must be a caterer at a dog track, horse track, or jai alai fronton. In this context, Section 565.02(5), Florida Statutes, reads in pertinent part as follows: (5) A caterer at a horse or dog racetrack or jai alai fronton may obtain a license upon the payment of an annual state license tax of $675. Such caterer’s license shall permit sales only within the enclosure in which such races or jai alai games are conducted, and such licensee shall be permitted to sell only during the period beginning 10 days before and ending 10 days after racing or jai alai under the authority of the Division of Pari- mutual Wagering of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation is conducted at such racetrack or jai alai fronton. . . . Petitioner participated, to some degree, in the rule development process. The extent of that participation is unclear from the record. The text of the proposed rules as published in their final form in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 10, 2003, is as follows: 61A-7.003 Premises Not Eligible For Smoking Designation. Licensed premises shall not be designated as a stand-alone bar if the qualifications for licensure require the premises be devoted predominantly to activities other than the service of alcohol. The following licenses are not eligible for a stand-alone bar designation: S = Special Hotel SH = Special Hotel in counties with population of 50,000 or less SR = Special Restaurant issued on or after January 1, 1958 SRX = Special Restaurant SBX = Special Bowling SAL = Special Airport SCX = Special Civic Center SCC = Special County Commission SPX = Pleasure, Excursion, Sightseeing, or Charter boats X = Airplanes, Buses, and Steamships IX = Railroad Cars XL = Passenger Waiting Lounge operated by an airline PVP = Passenger Vessels engaged in foreign commerce FEX = Special Public Fairs/Expositions HBX = Special Horse Breeders HBX = Special County Commission 11AL = American Legion Post permitted to sell to general public 11C = Social, Tennis, Racquetball, Beach, or Cabana Club 11CE = Licensed vendors exempt from payment of surcharge tax 11CS = Special Act Club License 11CT = John and Mable Ringling Museum 11GC = Golf Club 11PA = Symphony, Live Performance Theatre, Performing Arts Center 12RT = Dog or Horse Track or Jai Alai Fronton 13CT = Catering Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9) FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695 FS. History--New 61A-7.007 Formula For Compliance With Required Percentage of Gross Food Sales Revenues. In order to determine compliance, the division shall use the formula of gross food sales revenue, including but not limited to non-alcoholic beverages, divided by gross total sales revenue, in any consecutive six- month period. The results of the formula will represent the percentage of food sales revenues as defined herein and in s. 561.695, Florida Statutes. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9) FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6) FS. History--New 61A-7.008 For Percentage of Gross Alcohol Sales Revenue Formula. In order to determine compliance, the division shall use the formula of gross alcohol sales revenue divided by gross total sales revenue, in any consecutive six-month period. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9) FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6) FS. History--New 61A-7.009 Method Used to Determine Whether an Establishment is Predominantly Dedicated to the Serving of Alcoholic Beverages. In order to determine whether an establishment, other than one holding a specialty license designated in Rule 61A- 7.003, F.A.C., is predominantly dedicated to the serving of alcoholic beverages, the division shall compare the percentage of gross food sales revenue with the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue. If the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue is greater than that of the gross food sales revenue, an establishment is deemed predominantly dedicated to the serving of alcoholic beverages. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9) FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(1)(9) FS. History--New Article X, Section 20, Florida Constitution, was adopted by the electorate in 2002, and generally prohibits smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces. This constitutional provision includes certain exceptions from this general prohibition including the "stand-alone bar" exception. Section 20(d) instructs the Florida Legislature to adopt legislation to implement its provisions and specifies that the Legislature is not precluded from enacting any law constituting or allowing a more restrictive regulation of tobacco smoking than is provided in Section 20. The legislature implemented the constitutional amendment by amending Part II, Chapter 386, Florida Statutes. Section 386.204 prohibits smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces, except as provided in Section 386.2045. Section 386.2045 enumerates exceptions to the general prohibition, including the exception of a stand-alone bar. Section 386.2045(4), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: (4) STAND-ALONE BAR- A business that meets the definition of a stand-alone bar as defined in s. 386.203(11) and that otherwise complies with all applicable provisions of the Beverage Law and this part. A stand-alone bar is defined in Section 386.203(11) as follows: (11) 'Stand-alone bar' means any licensed premises devoted during any time of operation predominately or totally to serving alcoholic beverages, intoxicating beverages, or intoxicating liquors, or any combination thereof, for consumption on the licensed premises; in which the serving of food, if any, is merely incidental to the consumption of any such beverage; and the licensed premises is not located within, and does not share any common entryway or common indoor area with, any other enclosed indoor workplace, including any business for which the sale of food or any other product or service is more than an incidental source of gross revenue. A place of business constitutes a stand-alone bar in which the service of food is merely incidental in accordance with this subsection if the licensed premises derives no more than 10 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food consumed on the licensed premises. Deborah Pender is the chief of licensing for the Division. According to Ms. Pender, the Division included the SBX or special bowling license in the list of special licenses that cannot qualify for stand alone bar status in proposed Rule 61A- 7.003 because its predominant business is a bowling alley. Similarly, the 12RT license was included because its predominant business is a racetrack: "Because that’s a specialty license that is issued at race tracks, and if it wasn’t a race track business, the caterer . . . couldn’t have a license anywhere else." Marie Carpenter is the chief of the Bureau of Auditing of the Division. According to Ms. Carpenter, the provision regarding the six consecutive months in proposed rules 61A-7.007 and 61A-7.008 was intended to give the Division enough of a period of time to get a good picture of whether the business met the criteria for compliance and to give licensees an opportunity to build up business records that were not previously required to be kept.2/ The licensee would be required to keep daily records. Ms. Carpenter acknowledged that in using the six month auditing period in the proposed rule, a licensee could exceed the 10 percent requirement on one or more occasions during the audit period. Sandy Finkelstein is President of Petitioner and is the operating partner of Shore Lanes Bowling Center in Merritt Island, Florida. According to Mr. Finkelstein, there is at least one bowling facility in Florida that was issued a 4COP license. A bowling facility with a 4COP license is not automatically excluded from the stand-alone bar designation, whereas a bowling facility with an SBX license is automatically excluded from the stand-alone bar designation by virtue of proposed rule 61A-7.003.
The Issue Whether, on four separate occasions, agents, servants, or employees of respondent sold alcoholic beverages to persons under 19 years of age, in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, as alleged in petitioner's Notice to Show Cause.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 16-2587, Series 2-APS, be revoked for multiple violations of the Beverage Law. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Don Allen, Esquire 600 S.W. 4th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in Case no. 92-4204 is whether the Respondent correctly reported and remitted the alcoholic beverage surcharge for the audit period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. The amount claimed by the Department for this case is $5,767.82. The issue in Case no. 92-4205 is whether the Respondent correctly reported and remitted the surcharge for the audit period of July 1, 1990 through March 31, 1991. The amount of the audit deficiency alleged by the Department for this case is $4,952.48.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing and administering Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Respondent is the owner and holder of two alcoholic beverage licenses. License no. 58-01411 which is a 4COP SRX license is for Hemingway's Oyster Bar and Caribbean Barbeque, Inc. doing business as Townsend's Fish House, Oyster Bar & Tavern (Fish House). The business location for that license is 35 West Michigan Street, Orlando, Florida. The second license, license no. 58-02757, is also a 4COP SRX license for Hemingway's Oyster Bar and Caribbean Barbeque, Inc. doing business as Townsend's Plantation and Doc Tommy's Tavern (Plantation). That business location is 604 E. Main Street, Apopka, Florida. Following the enactment of Section 561.501, Florida Statutes, the Department issued a form designated DBR 44-005E that directed alcoholic beverage licensees to elect a method of reporting and computing the beverage surcharge. The form directed licensees to specify whether the beverage surcharge would be paid based upon purchases or based upon sales. For vendors utilizing the sales method, form DBR 44-005E required a certification of the inventory of alcoholic beverages on hand before opening for business July 1, 1990. Respondent elected to utilize the sales method. The Fish House inventory certified that it had 351.05 gallons of beer (241 bottled, 110.05 draft), 79.48 gallons of wine, and 172.82 gallons of liquor on hand as of the date noted. The Plantation certified it had 183.84 gallons of beer, 139.14 gallons of wine, and 99.46 gallons of liquor. In May, 1991, auditors employed by the Department met with Respondent's employees at each of the licensed premises. An audit for the period July, 1990 through March, 1991, utilizing the depletion method was chosen since the licensee had elected the sales method for reporting and remitting the beverage surcharge. In performing the audit at the Plantation location, the Department accepted that 74.66 gallons of liquor, 39.85 gallons of wine, and 567 gallons of draft beer were used in food preparations and were, therefore, not included in the gallons reported for surcharge purposes (cooking allowance). The invoices for suppliers at the Plantation were reviewed for the following categories of purchases: draft beer, beer (presumably bottled or canned), wine coolers, wine, and liquor. By adding the total of all purchases for the audit period to the beginning inventory, the Department calculated a total volume for the Plantation. In theory, by subtracting the ending inventory from the total volume resulted in the amounts of beverages consumed. From that amount the Department subtracted the cooking allowance noted above, and a spillage amount provided for by rule. As it is presumed some spillage occurs in the mixing and serving of beverages, the rule provides for an offset for spillage by beverage category. Following the procedure outlined above, the auditor calculated that for the audit period, the Plantation had sold 720 gallons of draft beer, 1731.61 gallons of beer, 8.55 gallons of wine coolers, 1090.70 gallons of wine, and 546.27 gallons of liquor. When compared to the reports filed by the Plantation, the auditor determined that in each category noted, the licensee had under reported the volumes sold. The difference for each category was: 494.01 gallons of draft beer, 788.25 gallons of beer, 8.55 gallons of wine coolers, 642.01 gallons of wine, and 244.93 gallons of liquor. The total additional surcharge which should have been remitted based upon the difference not reported was $5,767.82. The auditors used the same approach when reviewing the records for the Fish House. The cooking allowance accepted by the Department for the Fish House was 1400 gallons beer, 67.38 gallons wine, and 9.50 gallons liquor. The spillage allowance was calculated as provided by rule. Additionally, a collection allowance was given for the Fish House in the amount of $195.85. After computing the totals as described above, the auditor found a difference in each of the categories reviewed. After applying the surcharge to the unreported sales amount, the Fish House was cited for a shortage of $4,952.48. The Fish House management claimed, as part of the volume unaccounted for, drinks which were deemed complimentary or free. However, such beverages should have been included in the volume reported as a sale. Respondent also claimed that the spillage allowance provided for by rule was arbitrarily low. Also unconsidered were the losses to inventory due to theft. When such losses are deemed minimal, the theft may go unreported to police or insurance. Cumulatively such losses may be significant. Also unconsidered in reconciling the inventory was the industry practice of "over pours." While discouraged by Respondent, it is not uncommon for bartenders to pour more than the standard measurement of liquor for a good customer. If so, the Respondent's practice of looking to the number of sales to determine ounces sold would have resulted in an under estimating of the ounces dispensed. The auditors did not review the sales tapes or other sales records to confirm the surcharge amounts. The Respondent was unaware of the audit method which would be used to review the surcharge accounting. No insurance or police reports were made for the loss or stolen inventory claimed by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in case no. 92-4204 requiring the Respondent to remit an additional surcharge in the amount of $5,767.82. For case no. 92-4205, the Department should require the Respondent to remit an addition surcharge amount of $4,952.48. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 92-4204 AND 92-4205 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are accepted. Paragraph 4--the first sentence is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or comment. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to governing law or rule. NOTE: Respondent mistakenly has alleged facts or circumstances more appropriately raised by a rule challenge procedure. Section 120.57(1) hearings do not resolve issues related to the lawfulness of rules. Further, challenges to unpromulgated agency policy should be challenged as an unpromulgated rule. Such challenges are not appropriate to this type of proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Richard S. Wright Firstate Tower, Ste. 1550 255 S. Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Clay M. Townsend 35 W. Michigan St. Orlando, FL 32806 Richard W. Scully, Executive Director Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Dept. of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
Findings Of Fact Victor Ingargiola is the sole shareholder, director and officer of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East (Petitioner), a Florida corporation. The State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the Respondent. Both Mr. Victor Ingargiola and his wife, Mrs. Barbara Ingargiola, entered the Division's double random selection drawing for eligibility to apply for a new quota alcoholic beverage license. Mr. Ingargiola was selected in the drawing, and Mrs. Ingargiola was not. After receiving notice of his selection in the drawing, Mr. Ingargiola formed the Petitioner and applied for licensure on or about November 1, 1984. In his application, Mr. Ingargiola did not identify his wife as a person having an interest in Petitioner or its business, either directly or indirectly. The application also represented that Petitioner had a right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed at 4513 Causeway Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. Petitioner's application carries with it an application fee of $6,750. Mr. Ingargiola obtained a portion of the funds necessary to pay the application fee from funds held jointly by him and his wife and by loans to him and his wife secured by property jointly held by him and his wife. Virtually all money and property of the Ingargiolas is held in their joint names. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ingargiola conferred with the Division's Investigator Miller concerning the application. Miller initially requested that Mrs. Ingargiola be finger printed as a person having an interest in the license to be issued. Mrs. Ingargiola understood that she was not permitted to have an interest since she herself had entered the double random selection drawing. She therefore declined to be fingerprinted or to be made to appear on the application as a party having an interest in the license to be issued. Investigator Miller also discussed with the Ingargiolas the question of Mrs. Ingargiola's involvement and the financing of Petitioner. Investigator Miller led the Ingargiolas to believe that the only possible legal financing arrangement would be for Mrs. Ingargiola to give the funds to her husband outright. He led them to believe that this could be done by affidavit, and Mrs. Ingargiola signed and filed an affidavit which Investigator Miller approved as to form. The affidavit listed the financing in question and stated: "I swear that the following funds obtained are to be used by Victor A. Ingargiola and I will have no interest or control over these funds." Barbara Ingargiola also testified at final hearing that she claims no interest whatsoever in Petitioner, any license to be issued to it, or the funds she gave outright to her husband to finance Petitioner. Essentially, Mrs. Ingargiola gave her half of the joint funds and proceeds of joint loans used by Victor Ingargiola to finance Petitioner's application fee. If necessary, she was prepared to do the same with the proceeds from the sale of joint real property or loans secured by the Ingargiolas' joint real property. However, no mention was made or consideration given to Mrs. Ingargiola's liability for her husband's share of the joint borrowing in addition to hers. Mrs. Ingargiola did have an interest in the successful operation of Petitioner so as to enable her husband to pay at least half, if not all, of the joint borrowing used in part to finance Petitioner. On or about October 12, 1984, Mr. Ingargiola obtained a written lease to the premises to be licensed. However, the lease does not contain a commencement date. At the time the application was filed, the premises were occupied by another tenant, and, as of December 20, 1984, this tenant had a legal right to occupy the premises and had not been notified of the pending liquor license application or the lease. In addition, the purported lease contains a provision requiring Petitioner to secure its duties and obligations under the lease by depositing with the landlord the sum of $60,000 in cash or irrevocable letter of credit. There was no evidence that Petitioner had complied with or could comply with this requirement of the lease. Although Mr. Ingargiola testified to his understanding of his right to occupancy of the premises under the lease upon granting of Petitioner's application and issuance of the license, there was no testimony from the landlord on the ambiguities surrounding the lease and the rights of the tenant in possession. As a result, the evidence as a whole was insufficient to prove Petitioner's right to occupancy of the premises to be licensed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, deny the application of Petitioner, I & H Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Basin Street East, for a quota alcoholic beverage license RECOMMENDED this 17th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Diaz, Esquire 2522 W. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1927 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Fraternal Order of Eagles #4033, whose address is 615 Ridgewood Ave., Holly Hill, Fl. 32117 and holds license number 74-01574, Series 11C from the Division. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco had adopted rules which allow licensees to submit monthly surcharge reports based on either a "sales method" or a "purchase method," both of which are defined in Rule 61A-4.063(4), F.A.C. The purchase method is described as taxing the alcoholic beverages as they come in the door, and the sales method as taxing them as they go out the door. The only significant difference between the two is that current inventory is not subject to tax under the sales method until it is actually sold. Otherwise, the sales depletion method of auditing is applied similarly under either method of reporting. On or about January, 1994, the Division conducted an audit of Respondent's records to determine alcoholic beverage surcharge payment compliance during the period July 1, 1990 through October 31, 1993. The audit method used is commonly referred to a "inventory depletion," or "sales depletion." Respondent selected the sales method of reporting surcharges due, and timely submitted a surcharge report and payment during each month of the audit period. Respondent's reports are based on cash register records which indicate the number of units of each type of beverage sold, i.e., mixed drink, beer or wine by the glass. Respondent's surcharge reports calculated gallonage of liquor based upon a factor of one ounce per drink. Respondent did not maintain records of any "complimentary" drinks served. Respondent did not file any police or casualty reports regarding alcoholic beverages which it contends are attributable to theft during the audit period. The Eagles' well ordered weekly sales records understate the amount of alcoholic beverages sold, due primarily to the existence of overpouring, wherein the actual amount of liquor sold exceeds the one ounce per drink estimate relied upon by Respondent in compiling its monthly reports. Respondent did not conduct an internal audit to determine whether its sales records were accurate, or take some other significant action over the 39 months of the audit period to attempt to determine whether its primary assumption of one ounce per drink was accurately reflecting actual sales. Respondent's cash register tapes comprise an estimate of the amount of gallonage actually sold. The Division made no representations to Respondent which it might reasonably have relied in expecting that the accuracy of its monthly estimates of gallonage used, based on a one ounce per drink assumption, would not be subject to confirmation by audit. Respondent presented only anecdotal evidence to attempt to explain the admitted discrepancy between the actual gallonage used and the estimates contained in its sales tapes. The contention that some portion of the gallonage deficiency was attributable to pilferage by Eagles members or others, and an unspecified quantity of complimentary drinks for members or others, was not supported by any competent records or other evidence. The deficiency for Respondent Holly Hill Eagles represents thirty nine and eight tenths percent (39.8 percent) of the total surcharge paid during the audit period, which was $36,861.97. Since the completion of this audit and filing of the administrative action, Respondent has adjusted its assumption to reflect an administrative sale of one and a quarter (1.25) ounces per drink served. Respondent did not, however, present any evidence as to whether that assumption is any more accurate than the previous assumption. Based on this audit methodology, a surcharge liability of $14,691.83 exists. Respondent was aware of the Division's rule providing that surcharges are calculated based upon gallonage of alcoholic beverages sold, which states: If the vendor chooses the sales method, the vendor will bear the burden of proof that the method used accurately reflects actual sales. The surcharge deficiency determined by the Division to be owed in this case includes consideration of all applicable allowances, including spillage allowance of ten percent (10 percent) for draft beer and liquor, and five percent (5 percent) for all other alcoholic beverage products, which was applied and credited at the time of audit prior to stating the amounts owed. Based on this surcharge liability, the applicable penalty is $3,672.96.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Holly Hill Eagles be ordered to pay overdue surcharges in the amount of $14,691.83 and a penalty of $3,672.96, and a civil penalty of $250.00 suspended upon payment of the surcharge and penalty within 90 days of the entry of a Final Order in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed findings of facts. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-20 Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Michael Dukeshier P. O. Box 821 Holly Hill, Florida 32117 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John J. Harris, Acting Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This matter arises out of the denial or rejection of a filing by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien against a beverage license pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. Mr. Charles L. Hoffman, attorney for Liberty Bank of Cantonment, testified on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner offered two exhibits into evidence and both were accepted without objection. The Respondent presented no evidence on its behalf. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Law in support of its legal argument as to why it should be granted a lien against Beverage License No. 27- 426. To the extent that the legal conclusions presented in that memorandum of law and the facts stated are not adopted in this order, they are considered to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the facts or the law.
Findings Of Fact On July 10, 1981, The Rafters, Inc. executed a security agreement in favor of the Liberty Bank of Cantonment. That security agreement is a part of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and included a security interest in State Liquor License No. 27-426 issued in the name of The Rafters, Inc. On July 24, 1981, the necessary U.C.C. documents were filed in order to permit the Liberty Bank of Cantonment to file the proper documents with the Secretary of State. No documents were filed with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. On September 20, 1982, the Petitioner first filed the necessary documentation with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for the purpose of perfecting a lien pursuant to Section 561.65, Florida Statutes. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco rejected the filing on the grounds that it was filed beyond the 90-day period provided in Section 561.65(4), Florida Statutes. On October 19, 1982, The Rafters, Inc. filed its answer to an amended complaint in foreclosure which had been filed by the Liberty Bank of Cantonment against the property set forth in the aforementioned security agreement. In its answer, The Rafters, Inc. admitted all allegations of the amended complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order rejecting the application for a lien filed by the Petitioner to perfect a security interest in Beverage License No. 27-426. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles L. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire Seventh Floor, Seville Tower 226 South Palafox Street Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire William A. Hatch, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation Dept. of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Gary Rutledge, Secretary Division of Alcoholic Beverages Dept. of Business Regulation and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for violation of Chapter 561, Florida Statutes. Resolution of this issue requires a determination of whether Respondent correctly reported and remitted alcoholic beverage surcharges.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Betty Schmidt. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, she held alcoholic beverage license no. 74-00275, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises located at 1161 North U.S. 1, Ormond Beach, Florida. Petitioner's auditor, Muriel Johnson, performs audits on vendors monthly surcharge reports in order to confirm the accuracy of those reports and ensure compliance with statutory and administrative rule requirements. The audit in the instant case covered the reporting period of Respondent from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1997. Alcoholic beverage licensees are afforded an opportunity to elect to report and pay the surcharge by either the purchase method or the sales method. Under the purchase method, a licensee pays the surcharge on alcoholic beverages purchased from authorized distributors. Under the sales method, licensees pay the surcharge on alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on the premises. Respondent elected to report via the sales method. A licensee's reporting under the sales method is audited by the Sales Depletion Method. Under this methodology, a beginning inventory is ascertained. Second, purchases made by the licensee for the audit period are computed. Third, an ending inventory for the audit period is ascertained. Fourth, Gross Gallonage Available For Sale is computed by adding the beginning inventory to the purchases made during the audit period and then subtracting the ending inventory. Fifth, the Net Gallonage Available For Sale during the audit period is calculated by subtracting from the Gross Gallonage an allowance for spillage and a cooking adjustment. The end result is termed the Adjusted Sales Gallonage from which amount the amount of surcharge owed for the audit period is determined. Because Respondent did not keep inventory figures, and based upon her assertion that her inventory was generally the same, Respondent and the auditor agreed upon zero as the starting inventory. Second, purchases of alcoholic beverages by Respondent during the audit period were computed based upon purchase figures provided by Respondent and verified independently through records obtained from distributors. Third, the ending inventory was agreed to be zero. Fourth, The gross gallonage available for sale was determined by adding the beginning inventory (zero) to the purchases made during the audit period and subtracting the ending inventory (also zero). Fifth, adjustments to net gallonage for sale included allowances for spillage and package sales. Notably, the audit revealed that Respondent was treating liquor mixers as wine coolers and paying a lower tax on that basis when in fact wine coolers are taxed at the rate of one ounce of liquor per container at a higher rate. Adjustments for this practice were also made. Finally, the total surcharge due for the audit period was calculated and compared to the amount already reported in order to determine the amount of under- reported or over-reported tax. Respondent sets up various disbursement stations for beer on her property during “bike week” in Daytona Beach. With only one cash register, the sales at the various stations are maintained by hand on clipboards. Additional staff is employed at this time and Respondent is not personally present at each station to monitor sales reporting. Frequent sources of alcoholic beverage sales that are not captured by a license’s cash register include theft, breakage, leakage, spillage, overpouring of drinks, and free drinks. The amounts of alcoholic beverage that are lost to a cash register in these ways are captured by Petitioner’s sales audit method. While Respondent keeps good records, no cash register method can ever capture all of the alcoholic beverages available for consumption on premises and consequently there will always be some discrepancy as the result of a sales method audit. As established by results of Petitioner's audit, Respondent underpaid surcharges for the audit period in the amount of $890. Additionally, it is established that Respondent owes $557.66 in penalties and $193.33 in interest on the payment deficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring payment by Respondent in the amount of $1641.10, the amount of total tax and liabilities claimed by Petitioner to be due. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Betty Schmidt Smiley's Tap 1161 North U.S. 1 Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Suamy Corporation, held license number 23-21872, series 2APS, authorizing it to operate a beer and wine package store (the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption) at the premises of a business known as Bristol Sundries, located at 2127 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida (hereinafter "the licensed premises").2 Milagros Suarez was the sole shareholder, as well as the sole corporate officer, of the Respondent corporation. On February 11, 1997, Leonard DelMonte, a special agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, undertook an inspection of the licensed premises. Upon entry into the premises, the agent observed shelves on his left that contained bottles of liquor on display, and behind the counter he observed more shelving, which contained more bottles of liquor on display, together with bottles of wine. A cash register was observed on the counter, and an employee was present to attend the needs of customers. The agent inspected, inventoried, and seized 19 bottles of distilled spirits (Petitioner's Exhibits 2-1 through 2-19) on the licensed premises. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The bottles were all sealed; labeled as distilled spirits, such as rum, scotch, gin, and vodka; and carried the name, trademark, or insignia of commonly known manufacturers of distilled spirits, such as Johnny Walker, Cuervo, Pinch, and Bombay. The bottles also had affixed to them price stickers, of the same type affixed to the wine that was offered for sale, and contained prices that were consistent with the retail price of the product. Given the facts, it is apparent that Respondent was offering the distilled spirits for sale on the licensed premises.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charge set forth in the Administrative Action and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000 for such violation, subject to Respondent's option to substitute a period of suspension in lieu of all or a portion of the civil penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1998.
